Healthcare reform

[NorthSideSox72]

Then why don't companies offer to pay a zillion dollars an hour? Let's not pretend there aren't competive factors at work here. There are also tons of shareholder and stock price pressures that go on here. All it takes is one company to stop, and pretty much an entire industry stops, or at least that has been the argument for generations about why work gets oursourced outside of the United States.

That's kind of my point - companies still have to compete for good employees, so there is always a balancing act. You cannot just say "its a cost, we'll drop it", all the way down.

 

[StrangeSox]

No, there's no difference. You keep playing this semantics bulls*** game. They are eligible for the same s*** that I, a citizen, is eligible for, and that's wrong. Eligible, guaranteed, f***ity f***, what the hell ever word you want to use. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE TO WHAT AN ILLEGAL WILL GET UNDER THIS PLAN THEN WHAT I WILL GET. That is the bottom line. Why the hell is that so goddamn hard to understand? This semantics circle jerk is getting stupid.

 

Kap, those are two distinctly different words with very different meanings.

 

I'm not playing a semantics game. I'm making sure the correct words are actually used. Words mean specific things.

 

Yes, they'll have the same options as you. I've never said otherwise. They won't be receiving free or guaranteed coverage any more than you will.

[Y2HH]

I think you might be able to trace that to the decline of labor organizing movements than you can the advent of social security. Also, weren't there things like 401ks and IRAs that came about in the late 1970s that had more to do with the elimination of a pension than Social Security?

 

I think the intention was to replace pensions and act as a safety net for a broken SS system -- as if we believe what people say -- social security is broke, and payments are getting lower and it won't exist soon (now I personally believe that's BS, but whatever).

[Y2HH]

Kap, those are two distinctly different words with very different meanings.

 

I'm not playing a semantics game. I'm making sure the correct words are actually used. Words mean specific things.

 

Yes, they'll have the same options as you. I've never said otherwise. They won't be receiving free or guaranteed coverage any more than you will.

 

Well that's reassuring his fears.

[kapkomet]

Kap, those are two distinctly different words with very different meanings.

 

I'm not playing a semantics game. I'm making sure the correct words are actually used. Words mean specific things.

 

Yes, they'll have the same options as you. I've never said otherwise. They won't be receiving free or guaranteed coverage any more than you will.

That's all I have been saying all along and you know it - and you want to just keep this going, so it IS a semantics game.

 

You got the point that you know I've been making. That's enough.

[Y2HH]

That's kind of my point - companies still have to compete for good employees, so there is always a balancing act. You cannot just say "its a cost, we'll drop it", all the way down.

 

Eh, this is iffy. I've worked for many companies that took on lesser talent simply because they could offer them less. Some companies compete for good employees, but reality is, a lot are content with average employees that require below average pay.

[southsider2k5]

That's kind of my point - companies still have to compete for good employees, so there is always a balancing act. You cannot just say "its a cost, we'll drop it", all the way down.

 

Its not just a cost, for many companies it is their largest cost besides actual salaries. For lower waged workers, it would be higher than their salaries. I have no doubt it would go the way of the dinosaur.

[StrangeSox]

That's all I have been saying all along and you know it - and you want to just keep this going, so it IS a semantics game.

 

You got the point that you know I've been making. That's enough.

 

I said that pages ago. You kept saying things like "guaranteed" or "they will be covered," implying guaranteed coverage. They won't be.

[Rex Kickass]

That's all I have been saying all along and you know it - and you want to just keep this going, so it IS a semantics game.

 

You got the point that you know I've been making. That's enough.

 

So again, you are opposed to a population paying into a healthcare insurance pool? Because if illegal residents need medical care, they still go get medical care. The difference is, if they've been paying into the insurance pool - the costs to us won't be so high when they ask for charity care or just don't pay their ER bills. Because, if you're living in the gray economy, why would a FICO score ever matter?

[southsider2k5]

I think you might be able to trace that to the decline of labor organizing movements than you can the advent of social security. Also, weren't there things like 401ks and IRAs that came about in the late 1970s that had more to do with the elimination of a pension than Social Security?

 

I actually think you are kind of supporting my argument here. Both of those are plans that shift costs away from the companies, just like will happen with "the public option". They also came about because companies had dropped pensions, and not because of a fall of the labor movement.

 

[kapkomet]

So again, you are opposed to a population paying into a healthcare insurance pool? Because if illegal residents need medical care, they still go get medical care. The difference is, if they've been paying into the insurance pool - the costs to us won't be so high when they ask for charity care or just don't pay their ER bills. Because, if you're living in the gray economy, why would a FICO score ever matter?

Because these people won't be paying into a pool anyway. That's a farce. But they will have the same plan that I will be paying into as non-citizens of this country.

 

Of course, by the end of the year, they'll be "legal" anyway, and all this doesn't matter, right?

[StrangeSox]

Because these people won't be paying into a pool anyway. That's a farce. But they will have the same plan that I will be paying into as non-citizens of this country.

 

Of course, by the end of the year, they'll be "legal" anyway, and all this doesn't matter, right?

 

Then how will they be getting covered?

[Rex Kickass]

I actually think you are kind of supporting my argument here. Both of those are plans that shift costs away from the companies, just like will happen with "the public option". They also came about because companies had dropped pensions, and not because of a fall of the labor movement.

 

Or maybe it came about because companies were promising pensions and never funding them. Just ask Studebaker.

[Y2HH]

Or maybe it came about because companies were promising pensions and never funding them. Just ask Studebaker.

 

Whatever the case may be, the companies got themselves off the hook, and without increasing pay, put the onus on the employee to save for themselves without being required to assist. As some companies match 401k to a certain %, they are not required to do so.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Whatever the case may be, the companies got themselves off the hook, and without increasing pay, put the onus on the employee to save for themselves without being required to assist. As some companies match 401k to a certain %, they are not required to do so.

 

And the ones that don't tend to get worse talent.

 

And the companies that offer worse health benefits tend to get worse talent.

 

Isn't this free market in all its glory? What's the problem?

[Y2HH]

And the ones that don't tend to get worse talent.

 

And the companies that offer worse health benefits tend to get worse talent.

 

Isn't this free market in all its glory? What's the problem?

 

I don't see one.

[Y2HH]

Again, for the public record, I work for a health insurance company.

 

I have a 401k that matches.

 

I have awesome beyond belief health insurance.

 

Oh, and I also have a pension.

[Rex Kickass]

Whatever the case may be, the companies got themselves off the hook, and without increasing pay, put the onus on the employee to save for themselves without being required to assist. As some companies match 401k to a certain %, they are not required to do so.

 

They didn't get themselves off any hook. There never was a hook to begin with. There was a problem in the 1960s and 1970s where companies promised to give pensions that they had no intention of ever delivering on. Pensions weren't even regulated until 1974, and that's when the government started working to introduce things like IRAs and 401k.

 

Until then, the pension could have been fully funded by the company's own stock or never actually funded. It wasn't until 1974 that there were rules governing how pensions had to be run so that the workers who were supposed to be protected by pensions could actually be sure they were protected by pensions.

[Y2HH]

They didn't get themselves off any hook. There never was a hook to begin with. There was a problem in the 1960s and 1970s where companies promised to give pensions that they had no intention of ever delivering on. Pensions weren't even regulated until 1974, and that's when the government started working to introduce things like IRAs and 401k.

 

Until then, the pension could have been fully funded by the company's own stock or never actually funded. It wasn't until 1974 that there were rules governing how pensions had to be run so that the workers who were supposed to be protected by pensions could actually be sure they were protected by pensions.

 

There was a hook after 1974 then, and they got themselves off of it.

[StrangeSox]

I don't see one.

 

...so, when the public option comes out, and it sucks, why, exactly, will all employers dump their coverage without fear of talent leaving for places that don't dump coverage?

[Rex Kickass]

There was a hook after 1974 then, and they got themselves off of it.

 

There was still no hook. There was never a requirement to offer a pension. There were only rules to be followed once a pension program was created.

 

I feel like at this point there should be a joke made using the word hooker, but I'm not witty enough to make it.

[Y2HH]

...so, when the public option comes out, and it sucks, why, exactly, will all employers dump their coverage without fear of talent leaving for places that don't dump coverage?

 

Well first, according to Obama and followers of healthcare reform, it's not going to suck, it's going to be even better. And second, and more importantly, employers aren't fearful of their talent going anywhere right now, and they won't be for the foreseeable future. The vast majority of the employed aren't looking to job hop right now, because they may be hopping from a stable company to one that's bankrupt tomorrow.

 

And when the unemployment rate begins to drop, companies get leverage to offer lower wages/benefits because of the vast number of people in need of jobs. This won't turn around anytime soon...and by the time it does, if the private insurance industry isn't still around, there is no going back.

[Y2HH]

There was still no hook. There was never a requirement to offer a pension. There were only rules to be followed once a pension program was created.

 

I feel like at this point there should be a joke made using the word hooker, but I'm not witty enough to make it.

 

The point is, if companies can get away with offering less, they will...people bring up the talent issue, but most big companies can really care less for a vast majority of their positions. They want talent for certain specific areas, and they'll pay for it, but otherwise...they don't care if you graduated from college if you want the secretary job, that high school girl can type, too...only for 1/2 the salary.

[southsider2k5]

And the ones that don't tend to get worse talent.

 

And the companies that offer worse health benefits tend to get worse talent.

 

Isn't this free market in all its glory? What's the problem?

 

Great, so mark down another against governmental health care!

[southsider2k5]

...so, when the public option comes out, and it sucks, why, exactly, will all employers dump their coverage without fear of talent leaving for places that don't dump coverage?

 

Because it will be cheaper for them, result in higher stock prices and bigger profits. Its the same reason companies dump superior American workers and send jobs out of the country.